Charlie Harper: Serious times for serious debate

Two months ago conservative columnist Jon Gabriel wrote a piece lamenting "the debate we were supposed to have." In the wake of the second GOP debate it had become clear that instead of accomplished candidates comparing and contrasting themselves on major issues, we instead were witnessing the unholy alliance of an untethered reality TV star with cable news networks desperate for ratings. Real debate was being drowned out in favor of a circus.

His last line was somewhat ominous as a state of modern politics: "These are serious times. We are not a serious people."

Friday evening terrorists struck Paris. We are once again reminded just how serious these times are. We must have a serious debate.

It should start with the universal agreement that national security and defense issues are the primary role and responsibility of the federal government. What must be argued and articulated is what is the appropriate size of our military, and under what clear circumstances should it be used.

The events of 9/11 changed America and the politics of war. We were no longer a nation still reeling from Vietnam and the Iran hostage crisis. We were instead a nation that saw an easy victory in the first Gulf War and were likely too quick to jump into a multi-front war.

In Iraq the strategy for victory was loosely defined as "they will greet us as liberators." When resistance developed and troops began being killed and maimed, the explanation became "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

Republicans campaigned in 2004 that it was unpatriotic to oppose the war on terrorism, essentially cutting off debate on any legitimate criticisms of strategy or attempts to define victory. Only after losing the House in 2006 did Donald Rumsfeld get replaced. Politically, the damage was done. President Obama campaigned and won largely on a plan to bring our troops home.

This President ran for re-election on the theme that "Osama bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive." The narrative was apparently important enough to blame the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on a YouTube video for days after the attack instead of telling the American people the truth - that terrorists were still actively attacking us. Just Thursday, President Obama told ABC news that ISIS was "contained."

Sometimes it's easier to create facts to support a narrative than it is to level with the American people. This is where an objective observer would conclude both parties find themselves. There's enough blood on the hands of all involved to cover all the fingers being pointed at others. Yet while we point fingers, enemies are pointing weapons at us.

The debate must now be framed as where America goes from here. If we wish to continue to argue about the past, there can be a "ISIS is the JV team" counter to every "Bush shouldn't have put us here." We can continue to use the political process to assess blame, or we can make a rational assessment of where we are and what we must do to move forward.

The opening bid for this renewed debate after Paris was cast by Democrats during a debate in Iowa. Hillary Clinton said the war against ISIS "cannot be an American fight." She made it clear that the primary responsibility to solve this problem should not be one that falls to America. Bernie Sanders, for his part, stuck to the Obama administration's claim that climate change is a more pressing threat to America than ISIS.

The Democrats' positioning as to a largely status quo approach to problems in the Middle East may give the GOP its first solid opening to gain support on foreign policy in a decade. While attempting to win an election there must also be the understanding of what it takes to win an actual war.

First among these things is that we must understand what "victory" looks like. Every candidate for President -- and this questioning should be extended to candidates for Congress -- should be able to clearly and define how we know when we have won. Equally important, what would be the ongoing U.S. responsibilities, including personnel and costs, once victory is declared?

We then must be realistic as to what it will cost to accomplish this victory. U.S. defense spending is at a 50-year low as a percentage of GDP. Re-engaging at a meaningful level will mean defense spending has to increase. This means either additional deficits or additional taxes. One way or another we need to understand that we as taxpayers will have to pay.

There are also very human costs. A full war against ISIS cannot be waged remotely and by air alone. Placing additional soldiers in harm's way means more lost Americans, and more injured service men and women returning home. Our VA remains an embarrassment to the sacrifices of those who have already served. We should not send more into harm's way until we fix the broken promises that the Veterans Administration currently symbolizes.

Then there is the question of how long this war will take, and if the American people can and will prepare themselves for the duration needed for the fight. Those of us not in uniform were not asked to make direct sacrifices for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, the decision to support the war was a costless one. When the headlines turned negative, it was equally costless to withdraw support.

Before we decide to do this again, the American people need a clear understanding of what costs are involved, what sacrifices will be made, and how long we should expect to live in wartime conditions.

These are questions that are not served by one party in denial of the problem, or by another that has leading candidates making boorish statements such as "we're going to bomb the (expletive) out of them."

This is among the most serious decisions a country must make. We must rise to this occasion and decide as serious people.

Charlie Harper, author and editor of the Peach Pundit blog, writes on Georgia politics and government; www.peachpundit.com.

This story was originally published November 18, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Charlie Harper: Serious times for serious debate ."